Mark Richardson

4) Either the goal is to give regular people a way to earn a passive income, or finance professionals a way to earn additional income. I think this captures the dichotomy of the current discussion.

5) I refuse to accept that we simply hand over the reins to our financial elders. The cryptocurrency movement is also an anti-establishment one; it has always been about tearing down the old guard and building something new.

6) To this end, transferring the impact of IL from the individual to a token supply, mutualizes and automates the IL risk management. These are the same concepts underpinning any insurance structure, and are not controversial or experimental.

7) Just as insurance companies do not prevent houses from burning down, neither does Bancor prevent IL from occurring. Is it absurd to proclaim that StateFarm is wasting its time because its services do nothing to fireproof houses?

8) Bancor is an AMM, and an insurance company.

9) I am partial to criticism; however, much of the dissenting opinion has neglected to consider the insurance offering, and instead fixates entirely on AMM fundamental theory. Bancor has both, and no argument that separates one from the other is complete.

10) Sharing and diversifying profits and losses across the protocol does not eliminate discrete IL risk, but it can be eliminated in the aggregate. If premiums outweigh liabilities, the IL does disappear, on average.

11) Therefore, IL risk on Bancor is not “solved”, but is “handled” automatically, and in a highly decentralized manner that is appropriate for anyone to use.